Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 72,965
- 18,688
- 2,190
Sorry Norm I’m done with you. These petty insult games bore me. Try again some other time if you want to try and debate intelligent and substantive points.
Immigration/Invasion is War
- Thread starter Norman
- Start date
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,538
- 32,631
- 2,180
That’s exactly what used to be said about the Italians, dumbass.
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 72,965
- 18,688
- 2,190
I never said the words were documents. I said by the OPs definition the statue with those words I just quoted would be an invitation for foreign invasion
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,538
- 32,631
- 2,180
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,538
- 32,631
- 2,180
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #89
Do you really think I care if a traitorous piece of subhuman shit thinks that my point was a “stupid comparison”?
Criminals should not get a pass for being poor.
Not for breaking into my car.
Not for breaking into my home.
Not for breaking into my country.
Last edited:
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,538
- 32,631
- 2,180
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 72,965
- 18,688
- 2,190
Agreed anybody that does any of those three things should be held accountable. I have to hold my nose to agree because of your disgusting language. No wonder the division is so bad. Even when you make points I agree with I want to disagree with you. Try not being such a douche and you might find more consensus with your ideas
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,538
- 32,631
- 2,180
You should go to the Euro forum. My country is The United States of America.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #96
There's that forked tongue again. You've spent this whole thread doing nothing but siding with criminals who break into this country.
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #97
Do you really know what is wrong with this argument? While there is an issue - that of a massive influx of foreigners, it is the rhetoric and the proposed solutions that are wrong on so many levels. The name calling and trying to put everyone into this category or another are all over the place. Adding insult to injury, those on the right conflate different concepts to arrive at really - and I mean REALLY bizarre strategies that end up having no meaning whatsoever. May I?
Some on the right fancy themselves as "nationalists." Under this argument, they talk about national sovereignty. We have national sovereignty. In 1790, only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress fulfilled the ONLY duty,obligation and jurisdiction they have relative to foreigners. In Article I Section 8 the United States Constitution provides:
"The Congress shall have Power ...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
That is the sum total of allowable jurisdiction that Congress has over foreigners. The balance is left to the states. What we see are anti-immigrants, afraid of introspection. I read the banter and have been caught up in it for years, but the right makes less and less sense. They are confused and they conflate concepts of Liberty with those of citizenship. As such, their solutions end up not making any sense whatsoever and I'd like to take a few paragraphs to explain. Indulge me.
If I understand the anti-immigrant position, a person must be a citizen before they can live in the United States. This seems to be universal. However, the Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The foundational principle that man is born with Rights that are above the reach of government predates the Constitution AND that principle came more than a decade before the founders / framers ever considered such things as citizenship. So, contrary to what is being sold here, one need NOT be a citizen in order to exercise the Right to Liberty. The right conflates Liberty with citizenship.
We exercise "national sovereignty" through citizenship. Citizenship is what (if we were living under the form of government the founders framers intended) determines who gets this supposed "free shit" the nationalists, anti-immigrants (or whatever terminology they are comfortable with) wail about.
MORE TO COME
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #98
This is part 2 of my response
Unfortunately, the right got it wrong on how to deal with the "immigration" debacle.
Immigration is defined as:
"The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country."
Immigration
From a legal perspective this definition has NOTHING to do with foreigners who come to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by private individuals and corporations. IF / WHEN someone comes here for permanent residence, then and only then do they fall under the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.
Then there is the hype of an "invasion." The definition of the word invasion is:
."The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war."
invade
All sides are agreed. These are individual people coming here and not an army. Americans are willingly inviting the foreigners. So, the rhetoric does nothing to help understand the issue nor come to a fair and equitable solution.
And here is where the right fails to make sense to me:
The greatest hallmark of our Republic is the Right to own property. A homeowner owns their house; the songwriter owns the music they create. But, the idea of an employer owning the job he / she creates seems unfair to the anti-immigrant / nationalist whatever (no disrespect intended.) So, there are those who want to jail employers that hire foreigners that are not citizens. Whoa...
In 1790 only free white persons of good character were allowed to become citizens. Yet foreigners poured in to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. STATES had the say as to who came and went within a state. It would not be until 1875 that the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over foreigners. The high Court only did that because the California State Immigration Commissioner did not mount a defense to a case that was brought in federal court. But, what puzzles is me is WHY no constitutionalist has stepped forward and questioned where it is in the Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court ANY authority to bestow upon any other branch of government any powers.
To sum this part up, Liberty is an unalienable Right. Citizenship is a privilege. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution and our early courts ruled that those Rights are literally above the law. Citizenship, OTOH, is granted by the government and citizenship, under a proper interpretation of the Constitution, determines whether or not an individual qualifies for all this "free shit" mentioned in this thread.
We're still being inundated by foreigners, but the right got it wrong. The right isn't making sense to me. But, it will take even another post to get to my concerns. I hope they're still here.
Unfortunately, the right got it wrong on how to deal with the "immigration" debacle.
Immigration is defined as:
"The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country."
Immigration
From a legal perspective this definition has NOTHING to do with foreigners who come to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by private individuals and corporations. IF / WHEN someone comes here for permanent residence, then and only then do they fall under the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.
Then there is the hype of an "invasion." The definition of the word invasion is:
."The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war."
invade
All sides are agreed. These are individual people coming here and not an army. Americans are willingly inviting the foreigners. So, the rhetoric does nothing to help understand the issue nor come to a fair and equitable solution.
And here is where the right fails to make sense to me:
The greatest hallmark of our Republic is the Right to own property. A homeowner owns their house; the songwriter owns the music they create. But, the idea of an employer owning the job he / she creates seems unfair to the anti-immigrant / nationalist whatever (no disrespect intended.) So, there are those who want to jail employers that hire foreigners that are not citizens. Whoa...
In 1790 only free white persons of good character were allowed to become citizens. Yet foreigners poured in to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. STATES had the say as to who came and went within a state. It would not be until 1875 that the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over foreigners. The high Court only did that because the California State Immigration Commissioner did not mount a defense to a case that was brought in federal court. But, what puzzles is me is WHY no constitutionalist has stepped forward and questioned where it is in the Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court ANY authority to bestow upon any other branch of government any powers.
To sum this part up, Liberty is an unalienable Right. Citizenship is a privilege. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution and our early courts ruled that those Rights are literally above the law. Citizenship, OTOH, is granted by the government and citizenship, under a proper interpretation of the Constitution, determines whether or not an individual qualifies for all this "free shit" mentioned in this thread.
We're still being inundated by foreigners, but the right got it wrong. The right isn't making sense to me. But, it will take even another post to get to my concerns. I hope they're still here.
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #99
Part 3 of 3 of my response
According to the anti- immigrants, nationalists (whatever they like to be called) they are not against immigration provided it's done "legally." It is here that they genuinely lose me. I've already mentioned how the right conflates Liberty with citizenship, but this "legal" argument baffles me to no end.
In the 1960s the Democrats forced through immigration laws that were deliberately designed to dilute the white vote and disenfranchise white voters. And so, people from every country could come here on an equal basis to become citizens. There are two problems here:
1) Whites only make up 1 in 13 of the world's population
2) Non-whites have been programmed to hate, loathe, and despise whites. Whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt.
Sooo. Under the anti-immigrant, nationalist argument only "legal citizens" have rights. Yet it is this very demographic that disagrees with the anti-immigrant, nationalist view. To illustrate, this is a look at the 116th Congress:
"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent."
In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants
Adding insult to injury, the right (anti-immigrant, nationalists) wants to force state and local governments into enforcing federal laws. In the 1990s we all feared a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT with a single jurisdiction. It was the right that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court to create the anti-commandeering doctrine, prohibiting the federal government from being able to force state and local governments from being compelled to enforce federal laws. Today, those that promote anti-immigrant sentiments are at war over the precedents created by their predecessors aimed at maintaining the separation of powers.
So excuse me for defining the problem in lengthy posts, but this is only the beginning. I have much more on this if someone wants to discuss it.
According to the anti- immigrants, nationalists (whatever they like to be called) they are not against immigration provided it's done "legally." It is here that they genuinely lose me. I've already mentioned how the right conflates Liberty with citizenship, but this "legal" argument baffles me to no end.
In the 1960s the Democrats forced through immigration laws that were deliberately designed to dilute the white vote and disenfranchise white voters. And so, people from every country could come here on an equal basis to become citizens. There are two problems here:
1) Whites only make up 1 in 13 of the world's population
2) Non-whites have been programmed to hate, loathe, and despise whites. Whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt.
Sooo. Under the anti-immigrant, nationalist argument only "legal citizens" have rights. Yet it is this very demographic that disagrees with the anti-immigrant, nationalist view. To illustrate, this is a look at the 116th Congress:
"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent."
In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants
Adding insult to injury, the right (anti-immigrant, nationalists) wants to force state and local governments into enforcing federal laws. In the 1990s we all feared a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT with a single jurisdiction. It was the right that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court to create the anti-commandeering doctrine, prohibiting the federal government from being able to force state and local governments from being compelled to enforce federal laws. Today, those that promote anti-immigrant sentiments are at war over the precedents created by their predecessors aimed at maintaining the separation of powers.
So excuse me for defining the problem in lengthy posts, but this is only the beginning. I have much more on this if someone wants to discuss it.
Last edited:
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #100
I don't know where you're going with that. It took me three posts just to begin to respond to where I think the right got this wrong.
I personally do not believe in democracy so if you're implying that I'm a Democrat. I don't use the word in a positive context - ever.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
ICE must 'immediately' release immigrant who was detained after calling 911 to help save someone else's life, judge says- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 0
-
-
LA implements $30/hr min wage for hotel workers. Hotels slash worker hours- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
Know how Liberal Scholars and Echo Chambers suggest Red States are the real welfare States?- Started by IDIOCRACY
- Replies: 7
